[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines
Rob,
The Talbot MS gives the small (lesser) French theorbo string length c 76cm as
tuned in D. If this was at 'French' pitch (whatever this means in the context -
French pitch as recorded in England, French Opera pitch, chamber pitch)
then, if the same pitch levels and string stresses are the same, this equates
to an instrument in A at 99cm (ie as the very largest extant instruments).
However, solo instruments like the 'Lesser French Theorboe' seem to have been
pitched at the uppermost extreme of gut breaking stress (to paraphrase: tune
the highest pitched string as high as it will go) whereas even the longest
theorboes seem to have had a small 'safety factor', possibly to allow for local
variations (eg, a 98cm instrument in G at 440 is around a semitone/tone below
the breaking pitch), so on this basis the French instrument could be between 89
and 94cm. This also fits in very well with Talbot's measurements (88/89cm) for
the English Theorbo in A and is, of course, very significantly larger than the
small instruments some propose (75 to 82cm) for the double reentrant A tuning.
I'm not sure of the real evidence to suggest French theorbos were smaller
than Italian instruments; certainly Talbot's measured instrument suggest much
the same sizes and evidence from paintings of professional musicans (eg the
Puget mentioned earlier) also show large theorboes in France (incidentally, in
this latter case, not only double strung on the fingerboard but also the
basses! - but note the hand position: plucking very close to the bridge).
Incidentally, altho Talbot only gives measurements for the English Theorboe
in A, he gives the same tuning for the French theorbo and since he describes
the French theorbo with a string length of 76cm as being a small ('Lesser')
French theorbo, it's not at all unreasonable to suppose (as Gill and later
commentators did) that the string length of the French double reentrant theorbo
in A would also have been around 89cm.
Martyn
Rob Lute [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well I for one found that fascinating, Martyn. Thanks. Malcolm Prior has
just told me that - after a discussion with Lynda Sayce - my theorbo (which
he is making at this very moment) has grown to 85cms from 84. It will be
tuned to A=440. As I will be using it primarily for accompaniment, that
suits me fine. I can't afford multiple theorbos (Theorboes?) so this size
seems ideal - big enough for Italian ensemble work, but not too big for some
of the solo repertoire.
Something not mentioned in your message is pitch. I love French baroque at
low pitch, A = 392. My guitar is tuned that way, and 11c also. I know not
everyone agrees on 392, but I love it. Let's assume for the sake of
discussion (not arguement) that Robert de Visee played at 392, what would
that mean for the string length of the large French theorbo and also the
theorbe de pieces? We believe, do we not, that the large French theorbo was
smaller than its Italian counterpart, but not in the 70-80cms region? I'm
wondering if I could tune my 85cms theorbo to 392, thinking in A with double
re-entrant strings. I suppose that would be the same as tuning it to G (A 440).
Rob
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
-
Sent from Yahoo! #45; a smarter inbox.
--
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G? Plus some guidelines
Thanks for this; I'd be grateful for a fuller response to cover all the points in my previous email to you. Nevertheless I'll respond to this one below: INFORMATION I now see from your mention of my guitar stringing email that you seem to equate 'information' solely with figures whereas I also include other things such as tunings, examples of solo music, etc which you do not count as information - we'll bear this in mind. BOB SPENCER'S LYNDA SAYCE'S PAPERS In fact, Bob Spencer gave examples of large double reentrant theorbos in A and G (with string lengths around 89 and 91cm - the same ones I gave details earlier). He also cites Mace on tuning of single and double theorbos in G and A and says that large theorbos need the two highest courses down the octave and not just the first (ie smaller theorbos just had the first course on actave down p. 412). Similarly, Lynda Sayce does in fact provide much information including sizes of some large extant theorbos. TALBOT MS Talbot fortunately gives more than the minimum number of dimensions and it is quite possible to recreate the instrument based on what he gives at a string length of between 88/91cm (as Michael Prynne and later others) without making unecessary assumptions as David did (I'm told it's mostly to do with measurements of body to body/neck joint or to the end of the tongue and not by excluding the rose diameter). David doesn't mention reentrant tuning type (Talbot gives double reentrant in A for his measured instrument) and I would surprised if Lynda Sayce doesn't tune her 78cm English theorbo as single reentrant - but you'll need to ask her. Incidentally, 78cm seems an ideal size for a single reentrant theorbo - mine is 76cm which I now feel is marginally too small. EVIDENCE In short, the evidence I gave still stands and, little as it is, is indeed overwhelming (100%). I still await David Tayler's or your own evidence that small theorboes (say 75 to 82cm) were generally tuned as double reentrant. PITCH I don't quite understand your last point on pitch but if you are equating maximum acceptable breaking stress of solo and continuo instruments, I refer you to my recent email to Rob McKillop ... it contains figures too. WHEN SINGLE OR DOUBLE REENTRANT? Whilst no one denies that it is physically possible to string a small theorbo in A or G as double reentrant (especially using modern overwound strings), the question I, at least, am trying to address is what would have been expected historically. Early sources, when bothering to mention the matter at all (eg Piccini, Mace - cited earlier), stress that smaller instruments are single reentrant and that double reentrant is only employed when the breaking stress of the highest pitched string (in this case the second course) is approached. I can, of course, well understand that if you play a small theorbo in an unlikely historical stringing (ie A or G double reentrant) you'll feel an almost Pavlovian obligation to defend your decision but surely you should be doing this on this basis of modern convenience and personal preference and not on the unsupportable position that it's somehow following historic models. MH howard posner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martyn Hodgson wrote: In subsequent messages I gave more information (you must have missed it): - how such small instruments were strung (just top course an octave down or at a much higher nominal pitch eg D), - early written evidence of theorbo sizes, - examples of solo music for such instruments - Again, there was no information; just your own conclusion that smaller theorbos were not tuned double reentrant. You may be confusing these posts (I've just reread them) with your post about guitar stringing, which actually contained information. and gave Lynda Sayce's website and Bob Spencer's article as providing more information. You may say that I only refer to these articles because they support the position on theorbo sizes which I take - which it is true they do - But they don't. Spencer doesn't correlate single-reentrant stringing with size. Linda Sayce does, but like you, states only her conclusions. As already said, I'm still waiting for David Tayler's and your own evidence that small theorboes (say mid 70s to low 80s) in the A or G tuning were generally strung as double reentrant. Regarding evidence to support the case that such stringing only generally applies to larger instruments (say mid 80s to high 90s), I had hoped the sources I gave were sufficiently well known to avoid me having to do more than refer to them, but obviously not. It's not that the sources aren't well known. It's that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. It boils down to big theorbos were strung double reentrant because they
[LUTE] Re: Vuestros ojos
I agree absolutely, Daniel. I enjoyed all their other performances as well. Martin Daniel F Heiman wrote: Only 800 views in over 5 months??? This performance is outstanding and deserves to be much better known: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ81bbG-khM Daniel Heiman To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Playing in time (olim Polish, anyone?)
Dear Jaroslav, Thank you very much for these observations, which you have presumably taken from Robert Donington, _The Interpretation of Early Music_ (London: Faber Faber, new version reprinted 1975), p. 425. The first passage you quote, which Donington took from Thomas Mace, p. 147, is incomplete. The full text given by Donington is: Many Drudge, and take much Pains to Play their Lessons very Perfectly, (as they call It (that is, Fast) which when they can do, you will perceive Little Life, or Spirit in Them, meerly for want of the Knowledge of This last Thing, I now mention, viz. They do not labour to find out the Humour, Life, or Spirit of their Lessons. Here Mace is arguing for music to be played expressively, to capture the mood of a composition. He says that many players think you just have to get the notes right and play the piece up to speed, the faster the better. This does not really counter what I have been saying about lutenists playing out of time. You would have done better to look seven pages further on (p. 432), where you will find another passage taken from Mace (p. 81): [Beginners must learn strict time; but] when we come to be Masters, so that we can command all manner of Time, at our own Pleasures; we Then take Liberty, (and very often, for Humour [i.e. mood, not wit], and good Adornment-sake, in certain Places), to Break Time; sometimes Faster, and sometimes Slower, as we perceive, the Nature of the Thing Requires. In my earlier e-mail, I quoted the passage on p. 124 of _Musick's Monument_: ... you cannot fail to know my Mistress's Humour, provided you keep True Time, which you must be extreamly careful to do, in All Lessons: For Time is the One half of Musick. At first sight, Mace seems to be contradicting himself with these three passages, yet I believe he is spot on. I think he means that he wants music to be played in time, not with sloppy rubato all over the place for its own sake, but neither does he want it to be played mechanically with no regard for the mood of the piece. To capture the essential character of a piece of music requires some freedom of interpretation, but done subtly, and in such a way that the music appears to keep good time. I would suggest that Paul O'Dette does precisely that. He can play a piece of dance music so that one's foot taps in sympathy, but he doesn't play mechanically. There may be a little give and take to capture the spirit of a piece, perhaps a breath between sections, without him resorting to the sort of arrhythmic playing I so dislike. -o-O-o- As with Mace, you would have done better to choose a quotation seven pages on for Frescobaldi, where Donington gives the following (p. 432): First, this kind of playing must not be subject to the beat, as we see done in modern Madrigals, which, in spite of their difficulties, are made easier by means of the beat, taking it now slowly, now quickly, and even held in the air, to match the expressive effects, or the sense of the words. In this passage, and in the one you quoted, Frescobaldi is talking specifically about the performance of his toccatas for keyboard, and clearly wants a very free performance. I would suggest that some of the early lute ricercars might be approached in a similar way. If there is any irregularity in the rhythm, it has to be for a purpose though, not just for its own sake. The meaning of the word ricercar can give us a clue - searching out, research, discovery, exploration - it is as if the performer is trying to discover something through the music, almost as if he is playing the piece for the first time. It is an experiment in music, as he tries now this, now that, in a succession of different moods. Likewise, I think French unmeasured preludes would also qualify for some freedom of rhythm, as they set the scene for the dance pieces to follow. Although I believe the exploratory sort of ricercar invites some rhythmic freedom, I would not extend this to all pieces which happen to be called ricercar. Some are more polyphonic in character, and a strict tempo is more suitable. I have on my lap a facsimile of Annibale Padovano's Libro primo di Ricercare a 4 Voci (1556). The music is in score for four instruments (or keyboard playing the lot). If you were to perform these pieces on four recorders or viols, you would expect them to be in pretty strict time. If there was anything more than just a slight give or take from any of the players, the others would lose their place. Now, the second of these ricercars was arranged for solo lute and included by Galilei on page 4 of _Il Fronimo_ (1584). Is there any reason why a lutenist should perform this piece in a completely different way? Should the liberties he takes be any greater than those taken by a consort of viols, and if so, why? -o-O-o- In his latest Dowland CD, Nigel North includes Melancholy Galliard. He plays this slower than other galliards on the CD, understandably because of the title. I tried to measure
[LUTE] Re: Playing in time
Dear Stewart and Jaroslaw, In a way you are both right advocating legitimate interpretations, theoretically opposite. But they overlap and that common region is in much degree subjective, depending on context, historicall or personal styles, even some national propensities (compare the Italian and French battles over the style of composition or performance in the XVIIth C.). The problem is that the discussion started from a very bad exemple which nither represent a dance form (in case of the web site 'as if Polish') but a free composition, nor any particular style of playing. Actually, I'd have to get massively drunken in order to play for over ten years the same notorious Finale 'by Dlugoraj' and not much else. The player seems much more imaginative in self promoting (as the entire contents of the page testifies!) then musical interpretation. Then, I think, P O'Dette and H Smith, or R Lislevand, or even J Bream, are safer for polemics however contrasting are their interpretations. The discussion can be exciting, even limited to verbal descriptions (for the lack of sound, the soul of music) and can tell perhaps more of ourselves and our preferences, then the subject itself, so elusive. So forgive I shortened the Subject and cut off the useless association. Jurek __ On 2008-02-03, at 17:03, Stewart McCoy wrote: Dear Jaroslav, Thank you very much for these observations, which you have presumably taken from Robert Donington, _The Interpretation of Early Music_ (London: Faber Faber, new version reprinted 1975), p. 425. The first passage you quote, which Donington took from Thomas Mace, p. 147, is incomplete. The full text given by Donington is: Many Drudge, and take much Pains to Play their Lessons very Perfectly, (as they call It (that is, Fast) which when they can do, you will perceive Little Life, or Spirit in Them, meerly for want of the Knowledge of This last Thing, I now mention, viz. They do not labour to find out the Humour, Life, or Spirit of their Lessons. Here Mace is arguing for music to be played expressively, to capture the mood of a composition. He says that many players think you just have to get the notes right and play the piece up to speed, the faster the better. This does not really counter what I have been saying about lutenists playing out of time. You would have done better to look seven pages further on (p. 432), where you will find another passage taken from Mace (p. 81): [Beginners must learn strict time; but] when we come to be Masters, so that we can command all manner of Time, at our own Pleasures; we Then take Liberty, (and very often, for Humour [i.e. mood, not wit], and good Adornment-sake, in certain Places), to Break Time; sometimes Faster, and sometimes Slower, as we perceive, the Nature of the Thing Requires. In my earlier e-mail, I quoted the passage on p. 124 of _Musick's Monument_: ... you cannot fail to know my Mistress's Humour, provided you keep True Time, which you must be extreamly careful to do, in All Lessons: For Time is the One half of Musick. At first sight, Mace seems to be contradicting himself with these three passages, yet I believe he is spot on. I think he means that he wants music to be played in time, not with sloppy rubato all over the place for its own sake, but neither does he want it to be played mechanically with no regard for the mood of the piece. To capture the essential character of a piece of music requires some freedom of interpretation, but done subtly, and in such a way that the music appears to keep good time. I would suggest that Paul O'Dette does precisely that. He can play a piece of dance music so that one's foot taps in sympathy, but he doesn't play mechanically. There may be a little give and take to capture the spirit of a piece, perhaps a breath between sections, without him resorting to the sort of arrhythmic playing I so dislike. -o-O-o- As with Mace, you would have done better to choose a quotation seven pages on for Frescobaldi, where Donington gives the following (p. 432): First, this kind of playing must not be subject to the beat, as we see done in modern Madrigals, which, in spite of their difficulties, are made easier by means of the beat, taking it now slowly, now quickly, and even held in the air, to match the expressive effects, or the sense of the words. In this passage, and in the one you quoted, Frescobaldi is talking specifically about the performance of his toccatas for keyboard, and clearly wants a very free performance. I would suggest that some of the early lute ricercars might be approached in a similar way. If there is any irregularity in the rhythm, it has to be for a purpose though, not just for its own sake. The meaning of the word ricercar can give us a clue - searching out, research, discovery, exploration - it is as if the performer is trying to
[LUTE] Source Wars
I assume that these source wars, where one person trots out his sources, and someone else trots out his in rebuttal, are purely academic discussions with little or no relationship to actual real- world playing. Otherwise, if you guys need to be told how to play musically, if you have to look it up in your historical sources, then there is something fundmentally wrong with your own innate sense of music making. At the end of Stewart McCoy's last post I felt like saying congratulations, you just discovered musicianship! (not that Stewart ever acknowledges any of my posts. He simply replies to the list saying the same things I just said, without even the courtesy of a cc). I wonder, though, whether anyone who considers himself/ herself a serious and accomplished player is going to be swayed significantly by anything in those sources. David R [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Theorbo in G/A? Plus some guidelines
Martyn, All this is very persuasive, but what about the story of a double re- entrant instrument with double strings and the second course in octaves, in G or A? From my sketchy calculations it appeares it must be an instrument of about 74 cm (stopped), considering on one side the breaking point of the high octave of the second (the _e'_) and the musical quality of the 6th (or 7th) course. As a theorbo it's a toy instrument, useless (?), but in therms of say a baroque d-m lute, with which it shares the tessitura, it is a huge one. In this case such a theorbo would have the 5th and the 6th (+ the 7th?) in octaves as well. Someone said that already. Gratefull for comments, Jurek __ On 2008-02-03, at 10:50, Martyn Hodgson wrote: Thanks for this; I'd be grateful for a fuller response to cover all the points in my previous email to you. Nevertheless I'll respond to this one below: INFORMATION I now see from your mention of my guitar stringing email that you seem to equate 'information' solely with figures whereas I also include other things such as tunings, examples of solo music, etc which you do not count as information - we'll bear this in mind. BOB SPENCER'S LYNDA SAYCE'S PAPERS In fact, Bob Spencer gave examples of large double reentrant theorbos in A and G (with string lengths around 89 and 91cm - the same ones I gave details earlier). He also cites Mace on tuning of single and double theorbos in G and A and says that large theorbos need the two highest courses down the octave and not just the first (ie smaller theorbos just had the first course on actave down p. 412). Similarly, Lynda Sayce does in fact provide much information including sizes of some large extant theorbos. TALBOT MS Talbot fortunately gives more than the minimum number of dimensions and it is quite possible to recreate the instrument based on what he gives at a string length of between 88/91cm (as Michael Prynne and later others) without making unecessary assumptions as David did (I'm told it's mostly to do with measurements of body to body/neck joint or to the end of the tongue and not by excluding the rose diameter). David doesn't mention reentrant tuning type (Talbot gives double reentrant in A for his measured instrument) and I would surprised if Lynda Sayce doesn't tune her 78cm English theorbo as single reentrant - but you'll need to ask her. Incidentally, 78cm seems an ideal size for a single reentrant theorbo - mine is 76cm which I now feel is marginally too small. EVIDENCE In short, the evidence I gave still stands and, little as it is, is indeed overwhelming (100%). I still await David Tayler's or your own evidence that small theorboes (say 75 to 82cm) were generally tuned as double reentrant. PITCH I don't quite understand your last point on pitch but if you are equating maximum acceptable breaking stress of solo and continuo instruments, I refer you to my recent email to Rob McKillop ... it contains figures too. WHEN SINGLE OR DOUBLE REENTRANT? Whilst no one denies that it is physically possible to string a small theorbo in A or G as double reentrant (especially using modern overwound strings), the question I, at least, am trying to address is what would have been expected historically. Early sources, when bothering to mention the matter at all (eg Piccini, Mace - cited earlier), stress that smaller instruments are single reentrant and that double reentrant is only employed when the breaking stress of the highest pitched string (in this case the second course) is approached. I can, of course, well understand that if you play a small theorbo in an unlikely historical stringing (ie A or G double reentrant) you'll feel an almost Pavlovian obligation to defend your decision but surely you should be doing this on this basis of modern convenience and personal preference and not on the unsupportable position that it's somehow following historic models. MH howard posner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martyn Hodgson wrote: In subsequent messages I gave more information (you must have missed it): - how such small instruments were strung (just top course an octave down or at a much higher nominal pitch eg D), - early written evidence of theorbo sizes, - examples of solo music for such instruments - Again, there was no information; just your own conclusion that smaller theorbos were not tuned double reentrant. You may be confusing these posts (I've just reread them) with your post about guitar stringing, which actually contained information. and gave Lynda Sayce's website and Bob Spencer's article as providing more information. You may say that I only refer to these articles because they support the position on theorbo sizes which I take - which it is true they do - But they don't. Spencer doesn't correlate single-reentrant stringing
[LUTE] Re: Source Wars
Ahhha, David: You forget egos and music. You cannot separate the two and sometimes egos show themselves in rude responses and --- no responses: I get that all the time. Vw - Original Message - From: David Rastall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lute Net lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 1:41 PM Subject: [LUTE] Source Wars I assume that these source wars, where one person trots out his sources, and someone else trots out his in rebuttal, are purely academic discussions with little or no relationship to actual real- world playing. Otherwise, if you guys need to be told how to play musically, if you have to look it up in your historical sources, then there is something fundmentally wrong with your own innate sense of music making. At the end of Stewart McCoy's last post I felt like saying congratulations, you just discovered musicianship! (not that Stewart ever acknowledges any of my posts. He simply replies to the list saying the same things I just said, without even the courtesy of a cc). I wonder, though, whether anyone who considers himself/ herself a serious and accomplished player is going to be swayed significantly by anything in those sources. David R [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.18/1255 - Release Date: 2/1/2008 9:59 AM
[LUTE] Re: Stegher sized theorbo body, comments?
The following text has been taken from Wolfgang Emmerich's homepage http://www.zupfinstrumente-emmerich.de/English/index.htm - click on new on the left, then scroll down to the bottom (pics available there): Only scarcely noticed: Magno Stegher in Venetia 1598 A much bigger share of bass-lutes than these days must have been played considering the comparably large number of instruments one finds among the surviving lutes. In most cases these bass-lutes were transformed into baroque-lutes later. One good example for these instruments is the Magno Stegher in Venetia 1598. It was only scarcely noticed so far because it is not being exhibited. This instrument was built 1598 by the Allgäu lutemaker Stegher as a typical bass-lute of that age. The body he built of 27 ebony-ribs with ivory-spacers. The veneer on neck and pegbox was made of the same materials. It´s quite likely that in its first version it had 10 courses. On top of the Magno Steghermark there was one of Magno Dieffopruchar- so either he did some repairwork on this lute or somebody thought it might sell more expensively with that name. Into its present shape as a 11-course baroque-lute with a string-length of 72 cm it was brought the 2nd half of 17th century. Some people believe it may have been done by Thomas Edlinger. If it was turned from a 10-course bass-lute into a 11-course baroque-lute it just meant adding a treble-rider and replacing the old bridge by a new one with 11 courses. It is quite likely, though , that the original neck was shorter as bass-lutes usually had less frets. Repairs were made in 1772 in Antzenberg and after in Hornberg, Baden (?), names cannot be identified. 1934 this lute was repaired in the Peter Harlan workshop in Markneukirchen (Vogtland). Later the instrument was destroyed by much too strong strings (Cello- thickness (!) -they still exist at the museum). The pegbox was torn from the neck, the table ripped off the body and the body itself broke close to the block. The single parts are being kept at the Berlin Musikinstrumentenmuseum in Tiergartenstr. 1, 10785 Berlin. It is not part of the exhibition. Like some other interesting instruments it is being stored in the cellar. For anybody looking for a bass-lute the Magno Stegher in Venetia 1598 is a very good model to be copied. I have built a few copies and always liked the results very much. -- Best, Mathias Michael Bocchicchio [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: In trying to arrive at a body size for a nice general purpose theorbo, I became concerned about playability problems related to body size. Though string length is a factor, several different string lengths will fit on any of the four theorbo plans that I have to choose from. I am attentively following current string length/tuning discourse, but prefer to remain an observer on that subject. As players, we can adjust to string lengths, but as mortals, we can't change our torso or arm length. The Stegher body is 69cm form end cap to the neck/body joint, and 42cm wide. --Add a mast, keel, and rudder and a child could sail it! Actually, the outline of the entire Venere 1592 Renaissance lute fits inside the Stegher body. It is hard for me to believe that this would not be a difficult hurtle for a Ren-lute player interested in 17th century continuo playing. Does anyone have some perspective on this body type? Is the feel or sound of the smaller Buechenburg or Graill significantly different? To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Music Notation Software
Taco Walstra wrote: On Sunday 03 February 2008 02:01, Thomas Tallant wrote: Depends a bit which platform you are using but I've used lilypond on linux which is quite good. Lilypond used to be unistallabe on Windows but now it is easy. Of course, Lilypond has no GUI - you have to enter a text file like in tab. However, the output looks promising... There are a few graphical frontends available: noteedit for example. PMX/musixTeX is also a freeware program and is the basis of the large werner icking music archive on internet. It was - many years ago. Today different people use different software for the music they post on the werner icking music archive. Output looks very nice. This program is also very good for continuo figured bass. (see http://icking-music-archive.org/software/indexmt6.html for details) Taco Stay away from musixtex. It is a nightmare Rainer adS To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: Playing in time
Dear Stewart, Sorry for changing the title but I don't think being Polish has anything to do with playing in time. Thank you very much for your analysis. Yes, obviously Robert Donington The interpretation of early music is a great source of knowledge for all of us. It's very handy for me, because I don't need to search originals even if they stand next to Donnigton on my book shelve in order to write short email for a mailing list. Anyway, back to the subject. What gave you an impulse to write was playing with sloppy rubato all over the place as you say, by the lute player from Contrabellum ensemble. I have to stress, this is not a defence of this type of playing. We can see two extremes in modern lute playing: 1/covering technical problems with ritardandos, rubatos etc. 2/keeping rigid, metronomic time no matter phrasing, style, mood or whatever. Unfortunately we can hear more and more boring performances of the second type not only by some lute players of the first rank, but few early music ensembles as well which remind me of Midi samples so popular in the internet. People listen to machine-made music and their senses respond. They start to like some mechanical qualities. Now, I have to say I wasn't pointing at you Stewart, so I can't see any problem of accepting both versions of time perception. This is the problem of terminology rather. So what does it mean to play in time? Well, it depends. I think we should avoid generalization. Playing in time ricercare, fantasia, toccata or prelude would be something absolutely different from playing in time Courante, Menuet, Boure or Gige for instance. If you dislike Donnington I will cite straight from facsimile edition of Musick's Monument which I have on my desk at the moment: (page 128) The Prelude is commonly a Piece of Confused-wild-shapeless-kind of Intricate-Play, (as most use it) in which no perfect Form, Shape, or Uniformity can be perceived; but a Random-Business, Pottering, and Grooping, up and down, from one Stop, or Key to another; And generally, so performed, to make Tryal, whether the instrument be well in tune, or not. (Sorry for lengthy citing but I can see you don't like shortening them). Anyway, no problem with free forms. Now, if we talk of more strict or dance like forms, we can not discuss time without mentioning the PULSE. Many people think - pulse means accent. And they like regular accents because they can tap their feet. This is what Donnington writes about pulse and accent (I have to cite him :(( He is just so good): (page 420)Pulse is not the same as accent, though the two may often coincide. In renaissance polyphony, the accentuation follows only the natural shape of the phrase, not the underlying pulse. The accents in the different parts seldom come together, and there is no such thing as a regular accented beat. Follow the rhythm of the words, not the barring - is usually good practical adviceIn baroque music, the accentuation is likely to coincide with the pulse much more frequently; yet there are a great many passages in which this appears to be the case, but is not. The accentuation still goes by the phrase and not merely by the bar. Then he cites Francesco Geminiani (1751) from Art of playing on the violin: If by your manner of bowing you lay a particular Stress on the Note at the Beginning of every Bar, so as to render it predominant over the rest, you alter and spoil the true Air of the Piece, and except where the Composer intended it, and where it is always marked, there are very few instances in which it is not very disagreeable. Donington tries to show the likeness of the music and the poetry. This is not a new concept however. Mace talks about a Comparison betwixt Musick, and Language - (page 152 Music's Monument): I speak thus much for This End, and Purpose, that it may be more Generally Noted, that there is in Musick, even such a Signification to the Intelligible, and Understanding Faculty of Man; and such a wonderfull-varios-way of Expression, even as in Language, Unbounded, and Unlimited...;and show as much Wit, and Variety, as can the Best Orator, in the way of Oratory. The earlier music the smaller correlation between the accent and the pulse. This is why some people think polyphony music is boring because they can't tap foot. Now, what about variations of tempo? This is a very wide topic, not for a mailing list, but reading Donington chapter XL page 425 is absolute must. Having decided on basic tempo, we have to apply it with the necessary flexibilityOne of our most harmful reactions against over-romanticising early music has been the sewing-machine rhythm! No music, not even music based mainly on sequences, will stand a completely rigid tempo. Most baroque music needs considerable flexibility. etc,etc. He talks latter about ways of doing it: by borrowing time and by stealing it. Absolutely indispensable chapter. How about some dance tempos? If you criticize Nigel North playing
[LUTE] Looking to share a ride to Cleveland
I am considering attending the Summer Seminar and wondered if there was anyone in the greater NYC area, southern Connecticut or for the matter anyone who might be driving through New York on Route 84. I am trying to work out transportation and wanted to know if there might be someone willing to share a ride. You can contact me off list. Thanks Bruce -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
